论文部分内容阅读
行政诉讼维持判决是我国独有的判决类型,这在世界范围来看是独树一帜的,但由于其存在着些缺陷,许多学者建议取消维持判决扩大驳回诉讼请求判决来代替。维持判决作为肯定被诉公权力行为合法性的判决形式,为我国现行行政诉讼法所明确规定。由于我国确立的行政诉讼制度是一种客观诉讼模式,法院对具体行政行为合法性进行审查后对其作出相应评价。维持判决作为与行政客观模式相匹配的一种判决形式,与行政判决主要强调通过行政判决解决包括公权力行为合法性在内的所有法律纠纷是遥相呼应的,但是它却与行政判决解决纠纷的这个关键职能相矛盾,因此在强调解决纠纷方面的当今,维持判决处于尴尬的地位。本文从行政判决的两大职能来论述,从而分析出维持判决不是自身的不足,而是在适用条件上的不合理导致了一些学者对维持判决的否定。
Administrative litigation to maintain the verdict is our unique type of judgments, which is unique in the world, but due to its shortcomings, many scholars have proposed to cancel the verdict of the verdict of dismissal to replace the verdict. Maintaining the verdict as a form of verdict affirming the legitimacy of the prosecuted public authority is clearly stipulated in the current Administrative Procedure Law of our country. Since the system of administrative litigation established in our country is an objective lawsuit model, the court appraises the legitimacy of a specific administrative act after its review. As a form of judgment that matches the objective model of administration, maintaining adjudication is distant from the main emphasis of administrative judgments on resolving all legal disputes including the legality of public power through administrative adjudication. However, it is in line with the administrative decision to resolve the dispute Conflicting key functions, the maintenance of judgments is in an awkward position in today’s emphasis on dispute resolution. This article discusses the two major functions of the administrative judgment, and analyzes whether it is not its own shortcomings to maintain the judgment, but unreasonable conditions lead some scholars to negate the maintenance of the judgment.